"To go back to the Enlightenment... If the human being is the measure of all things, what does that mean? Our reason. And our reason is completely flawed. All of us do things every day which are unreasonable, sinful, wrong, and absurd. Right? And the reasonable person says, wait a second, why'd I do that? What do I have to refer to in my confusion and my self-loathing? Well, the Bible was a pretty good bet.... Let's talk about human nature: You really aren't that smart. You really aren't in charge of the world. You really aren't. Although you think you are. You think that 'cause you're human. But God's in charge of the world, and there's a certain way things are, and if you'd like to get out of your wretched self-consciousness and self-delusion, you'd better get your ass into church."
Posts
44 comments:
Big beaver’s are frowned upon these days.
I’m halfway through Mamet’s new book which I bought through Althouse’s AMZN portal. Very interesting.
One of his topics is free speech. I would like to post a review of it on AMZN, but AMZN banned me because I don’t believe in CAGW.
While I happen to agree with Mamet, the excerpted parts are no better than a fundamentalist arguing with a geologist that the world was created in seven days because the Bible says so. His argument, as excerpted, is circular and reliant on an authority his interlocutor doesn't accept.
Churches do a rotten job of helping you find your God.
That was the origin of getting together as a group. Help each other find your God. Thousands of years later, Church is about church, telling you how to think abouttheir God.
Joe Rogan brings up that old canard that the Bible has gone through so many translations that we can't be sure of the original text. I know some people who are Bible scholars who are involved in Bible translation. They would laugh at that assertion. If we can't trust our modern translations of Scripture to be accurate, then we would also need to extend the same distrust to any and all ancient documents. The scholarship and practice of Bible translation is held to a very high standard.
Interesting point Mamet makes that secular atheists think creation stories from other cultures are cute, but those same atheists get really mad at our creation stories. That's actually kind of a racist duopoly, is it not?
The giant beaver is cute (i.e. non-threatening) because nobody outside the culture will believe that one. But lots of people believe in the Bible.
You'll see this kind of subliminal racism in Bill Maher as well. His hatred for Christianity is reserved for white Christians. The question for Mr. Maher is, "Do you think Martin Luther King Jr. was a dummy?"
A similar point that Mamet makes is that if you reject the creation stories of our people, since you are human you will create new narratives that (you think) explain the universe. So climate change becomes your god.
Funny how Rogan puts "walking on water" and "resurrecting the dead" as Old Testament miracles.
I think "creation myth" is a pretty apt description of Genesis. But it's sloppy to take that attitude for the rest of the Bible.
Wikipedia has a pretty lengthy list of creation myths. I would include "big bang" and "evolution" as creation myths as well. In fact the way secular atheists talk about evolution is often religious in tone. It's a scientific theory that's been adopted as a creation myth by atheists.
I'm ashamed I laughed at Jake. Anonymity is a good thing.
. So climate change becomes your god.
Yeh, I caught that. Believe in God is stupid, but climate change? 3 year olds needed a sex change? Yes, I believe, I do believe!
The difference, I experience the power of God daily. Climate change? Nope, nothing, ever.
We need the Bible because most people are idiots, the left knows this, so they codify and subsitute their own beliefs.
Most *actual* atheists don't care what Christians think, those obsessed by that have some belief system of their own they are defending.
"While I happen to agree with Mamet, the excerpted parts are no better than a fundamentalist arguing with a geologist that the world was created in seven days because the Bible says so. His argument, as excerpted, is circular and reliant on an authority his interlocutor doesn't accept."
No. He is talking about human psychology.
Joe Rogan brings up that old canard that the Bible has gone through so many translations that we can't be sure of the original text
I think you are importing too much significance in his point. But, to ignore the translation of the bible was not swayed by politics of the day, buys into a bit of naivete. The King James version? That's a hint.
I was blessed to have a pastor that had his doctorate in The Bible. He was fluent in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, French. He could take you to the original passage and translate it to English. Often a single word, needed a paragraph to translate the meaning. It didn't so much change the meaning, but rather added a depth, that clarified the passage.
Most *actual* atheists don't care what Christians think, those obsessed by that have some belief system of their own they are defending.
When a man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything.
Chesterton
"We're very cunning, but we aren't very smart."
Precisely. One needs only to look around to see that we are about a week removed from the caves. Yes, we are cunning and some are even intelligent. But for our entire history, humans have been dragged kicking and screaming toward the future by a small handful of more enlightened people.
For the most part (and you can view the mass graves in Ukraine as a starting point) we're not much removed from our cave life.
I've never read the Bible- neither the Old or New Testaments. I read a bit of the Torah for my Bar Mitzvah, but that was a long time ago. Recently- coincidentally- I pulled out the Old Testament that I've had with me since I was 13. I'm planning to read both the Old and New this year. I've put it off for so long and now I'm thinking I'd better get to it. If not now, when? So much to learn before we leave. If I can get through those, I'd also like to read the Quran. Simply to know what it actually says. It's pretty hard to discuss religions if you haven't read their own words.
Mamet has been making the rounds. I found his discussion of Hollywood Dying with Dave Rubin to be interesting. He uses Soho in NYC's rise and his projected fall as an example of how cities evolve.
As for religion, the best description I've found and it is only more generic than Mamet's is
===
What Is Religion?
Author(s): Frank Sargent Hoffman
Source: The North American Review, Vol. 187, No. 627 (Feb., 1908), pp. 231-239
Published by: University of Northern Iowa
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25106079
"No new-born babe or full-grown idiot has any religion, but every normally developed human being has. Whenever a man knows enough to distinguish the outside world from himself, and tries to act in accordance with this knowledge, he begins to be religious.
"The first element, therefore, in religion is the recognition of the existence of a power not ourselves pervading the universe. And another is the endeavor to put ourselves in harmonious relation with this power. Of course the feeling or affective element is presupposed as coming in between the other two. For without it the endeavor would lack a motive, and could therefore have no existence whatsoever. Every sane man believes, at least, that he is only a fraction of the sum-total of things. He also feels some dependence upon this sum-total, and he is obliged to put himself in some sort of accord with it. This is what [Edward] Caird has condensed into the statement, "A man's religion is the expression of his ultimate attitude to the universe" ("Evolution of Religion," Vol. I, p.30)."
His argument, as excerpted, is circular and reliant on an authority his interlocutor doesn't accept."
No. He is talking about human psychology.
In the excerpt - I keep saying that because I dislike and avoid videos, which I know is my problem and not necessarily a problem with Mamet's argument - Mamet is saying that humans are inclined to believe what they tell themselves, and because when it's not our own ox being gored, so to speak, we recognize that our own reasoning is flawed, we need to rely on something that transcends human reasoning. He goes with the Bible and church. An atheist might go with secular authorities and some kind of secular community, and won't agree that the Bible and church are needful for overcoming our inevitable blind spots.
I disagree with the atheist that humans alone, talking with one another and more or less reinforcing their own beliefs about morality, can come to any great Truth, in the same way that I disagree with the religious fundamentalist who cites Genesis as "evidence." But in these excerpts, it sounds to me as if Mamet is using the fundamentalist argument: human reasoning is insufficient, therefore we need God. That's not going to be compelling to an atheist - even one who acknowledges that humans can deceive themselves into believing just about anything they want, including that humans alone can deduce those great Truths.
I think of atheists as sort of like modern, educated anti-vaxxers: they can rely on things external to them, like the eradication of pollo and the rarity of measles, to redound to their benefit, without actually having to take on those burdens (such as being willing to believe that something greater than themselves, some power that moves the universe and, possibly, acts in human affairs, exists, despite a lack of "evidence" - or even, by some interpretations, "evidence of lack" like "junk DNA") themselves.
Shorter me: it seems to me that Mamet is talking about religion as an answer to human psychology, which won't be compelling on its own to an atheist.
One can believe in christianity and think the current crop of Christian "leaders" are gutless cucks and fakes who don't even believe in their religion. Do the leaders of the Church of England believe in Jesus Christ? Or heaven or hell? You'd never know it from their public pronouncements.
The Jews read the Talmud and follow rabbincal law and teachings, not just the old testament. Evangelical Christians keep forgetting that, assuming they even knew it in the first place.
6 days creation rested on the 7th, blesses and sanctifies. People use all different versions of the BIBLE EG. CATHOLIC 73 Books, CHRISTIAN BIBLE (HOLY BIBLE) 66 books.
I'm not a crazy religious person, but I do go to church.
It's a good reminder that I'm not so great in the grand scheme of things.
More politicians should attend church and actually listen while they're there...
Hard pass.
Most reasonable folks will own that they are not the center or in charge of the universe, but that doesn't nescitate a reason for going to church. To paraphrase the Stoics, one can use reason to live in accord with nature without embracing a religious dogma.
Jesus was a Lefty. That's why I put more stock in the Norse Gods. Stay Frosty.
The Ko-ran. That's some freaky shit there.
In reference to DINKY DAU 45's comment on the different number of books in Catholic Bibles as compared to Protestant Bibles: Those additional books, known as "The Apocrypha," (hidden books) or "The Deuterocanon" (second canon), were composed during the intertestamental period (after the last of the minor prophets of the OT and before the first writings in the NT). They were composed by Jews. But Judaism has never accepted them as Scripture (canonical). The Protestants are following that view. In the early 400s during the translation of the Bible into the Latin Vulgate, Jerome, the leader of that project, was forced to include the Apocrypha. He states several times in various writings that he, himself, did not view those books as canonical.
Who is Mamet's audience? He calls the Bible a myth?
Best thought on the subject was the quote that “I don’t believe in the Bible because of God, but I believe in God because of the Bible.” Prager said that. The scriptures are alive when read and composed like a Mozart symphony. Ergo: I
believe there is a Mozart.
What does Prager say about the Gospel and Christ? What's the flaw that leads him not to believe?
I wonder how it works with the Quran. A lot of readers there.
Praeger is a Jewish man… he wouldn’t believe in the Bible, eh?
To me, the chief purpose of religion is to humble oneself, which results in better behavior to your fellow man.
For most of human history ordinary people did not need to humble themselves much. They more needed something to help them go on.
This morning I read on of Mamet's essays about making movies. Gold for me.
“No movie was ever made out of ‘the development process.’ Films have always been made because someone with power bet on someone with promise.” David Mamet, Recessional, 2022.
....
“A film is green-lighted on the basis of its cost, cast, subject and director.” Id.
I enjoyed the interview, and I would like to hear or read more of his thoughts on this topic. He does not seem to be arguing for any kind of literal Biblical interpretation, but instead for allegorical interpretations and the search for archetypes. He uses the term myth in a healthy non- pejorative way, that doesn’t demean Christianity of Judaism. The Bible and Hebrew scripture are mythic in the sense that they are rich in archetypal themes, symbols, and patterns that suggest great wisdom about human psychology, consciousness, and history.
The study of myths tells us a great deal about our history, beliefs, and aspirations. This argument is built into the core of Jungian psychology, which values the search for archetypes, and a great deal of Catholic exegesis is allegorical and even archetypal as well. Moreover, Catholicism tends to avoid literal interpretation, except for the core of the Gospels.
What can we learn from the great mythic literature of the world, say Gilgamesh, Beowulf, the Odyssey, The Canterbury Tales, Shakespeare’s plays, Walden, The Lord of the Rings, etc.? They are packed with mythic and archetypal wisdom. Takes Walden, for example, despite its romantic Transcendentalism, it is full of Christian themes ( or myths) such as rebirth, renewal, redemption, and the search for consciousness and wholeness, which I think accounts for some of its continuing popularity.
I always love it when snarky types engage in Biblical commentary from their lofty perch of skepticism if not outright disbelief. It betrays their utter ignorance of the subject. Any passing acquaintance with the Bible, its history and preservation can only result in sheer amazement at how the text has maintained its integrity over thousands of years. These types don't blanch at the prospect of belief in the legitimacy of Caesar's History of the Gallic Wars despite the fact that there is no known text of it extant earlier than eight hundred years after than the events it describes. Moreover, the historicity of the Old Testament has been continually buttressed and supported by modern archaeological discoveries. One recent example is the discovery of the "Curse Amulet" unearthed at the site of Joshua's Altar outside Shiloh, which supports the text found in the Book of Joshua and the presence of the Israelites in that neighborhood in the 14th Century BC, consistent with the Book of Exodus. This discovery also puts the existence of an alphabetic script at a date consistent with Moses' authorship of the Pentateuch. The more we learn about the Bible, the more reason exists to accept it for what it claims it is, viz., the Word of God.
Readering: Well said.
Religion (i.e. behavioral protocol): morality in a universal frame, its relativistic sibling "ethics", and its politically congruent cousin "law". Principles follow principals matter.
Caesar's Gallic Wars doesn't ask us to care, or to suspend our disbelief at every turn, and damn us if we don't. Big difference.
As to Biblical archeology, it proves time and again that Jews and others existed and contested for dominance in the Ancient Near East, which has never really been questioned by reasonable people.
Mamet strikes me as something like a David whatzisname--a Know-It-All secular lefty back in the day and still a Know-It-All now that he's starting to feel guilty for the all the shit he spouted, and no doubt did.
Horowitz. I didn't follow them into leftism and I'm not about to follow them to church.
Temple. Mosque.
I don't know what to make of Mamet. It's praiseworthy that he sees the faults in the current cultural trend and tries to set things right, but it seems like he's boarding the neoconservative or Movement Conservative boat just as the ship is taking on much water and starting to sink.
Jake said...
"Big beaver’s are frowned upon these days."
Turn her over.
St Croix said,"I think "creation myth" is a pretty apt description of Genesis. But it's sloppy to take that attitude for the rest of the Bible.
Wikipedia has a pretty lengthy list of creation myths. I would include "big bang""
Everything was darkness and then the lord said"Let there be light."
Ad to make the comedy complete Howard compares himself to Jesus.
Look. there are parts of the Bible that seem to be literally "true" and other parts that seem to be poetically "true" -- As is true, for example, of the Declaration of Indepedence. Or, maybe The Communist Manifesto -- your mileage may vary.
When you read Exodous, do you care whether the Jews walked dry-shod through the Red Sea, or the much shallower Sea of Reeds? Did the Jews care which "sea"it was. Did they care whether there was any sea at all? Isn't the story about God freeing us from slavery, which is why so many Black slaves and their decesdants love this story?
I'm a Christian, and to me the Resurection is of vital imporrtance (although I have no problem with the fact that there are differnt versions of the story).
I'm reminded that the late Christopher Hitchens, rabid atheist though he was, encouraged his children to read the Bible in the King James Version, believing that it was a high quality translation and reached the level of literature.
Post a Comment